![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 16, 2002, at 8:12:23
[from http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20021106/msgs/32291.html]
> http://psychcentral.com/openjournal/story/0605010952.htm
Posted by ShelliR on November 16, 2002, at 9:09:48
In reply to Any comments on this article « Phil, posted by Dr. Bob on November 16, 2002, at 8:12:23
Dr. Bob,
I could see if this thread had only to do with you that it would be appropriate to move it to the administrative board.
But since it is turning into a general discussion on copyright, I thought it should have been left
on psychosocial babble. It is not really an administrative issue; members are writing about it as a legal issue and moral issue.Is it possible to move it back? Or to explain why it was moved?Shelli
Posted by wendy b. on November 16, 2002, at 12:43:15
In reply to Any comments on this article « Phil, posted by Dr. Bob on November 16, 2002, at 8:12:23
> [from http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20021106/msgs/32291.html]
>
> > http://psychcentral.com/openjournal/story/0605010952.htm
>> http://psychcentral.com/openjournal/story/0605010952.htm
Dear Phil and others,I don't know Grohol well enough, so I don't know whether I respect his opinion or not. We all took a test to come on the PB board, and we agreed to all of Bob's requirements, including his weird take on copyright (Grohol has a major point there, I think), and notification that he was doing research, and that it was being published. We all knew that.
In the medical research field, they can get pretty competitive. Which is an understatement. Since Grohol & Hsiung are both in the same field, they're probably competing for the same grants, so they can carry out more research, and then it creates its own cycle. If they get the money, they can do a study, publish results, become more respected, then get more grants/funding, etc. etc. I've seen this time and again in academia. Waiting for crumbs, so they can publish their findings, the reults of which are... ( _____ ). You decide. I read Bob's most recent publication.
I worked on grant-writing for a doc at a major medical teaching hospital in my area (not going to name it here). That guy was looking for NSF money, and he used human subjects. So I know about IRB boards (the ones within the institution, this time U of Chicago), and it's VERY BAD that Bob didn't submit anything to the IRB in his department. This has to do with medical ethics concerning human subjects. They have to approve his methodology, and then give him the go-ahead. This is for liability purposes, as well as good PR regarding the protection of human rights to not be exposed to illness, or to not be made ill by trial meds, etc.
So I believe, from experience, that if someone there in his department were a real stickler, they could go for his throat, have a hearing, put a letter of warning in his file, or outright fire him. The institutional process of approval of research protocols is very structured and well-known. BOB KNEW he had to submit a proposal and tons of documentation and justification to them first. I know because I've done it. The IRB, AND the Univ of Chicago are liable for anything that happens, like: what if someone sued Bob for damages? If he hadn't checked it out with his IRB, their ass is grass. Bob just went around ALL WELL-KNOWN protocol.
Best to everyone,
Wendy
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 16, 2002, at 13:51:58
In reply to Any comments on this article « Phil, posted by Dr. Bob on November 16, 2002, at 8:12:23
those were court awards. » coral
Posted by BeardedLady on November 16, 2002, at 9:51:22
In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20021106/msgs/32367.htmlThe Ravens award made big news. I find that cases like these (the ones I speak of and the ones that would affect me) are less about how you protect yourself than whether someone intentionally stole a work from you. In these cases, anyway, one didn't need a copyright to protect him; he only had to prove the work was his and that someone else used it without permission. Sometimes that proof is as good as a meeting date with the head of a company and an old batch of sketches.
Yes, internet makes it much more difficult. I would hope that Dr. Bob would not STEAL the poetry that I and KidA and others have printed here. I can understand using it for research purposes, maybe, but if he were to submit it to a poetry journal and claim it to be his, I could prove that I am the author of it.
If someone else took this work, then Dr. Bob could probably sue, as anything here is under his copyright protection, isn't that correct?
beardy
----
Re: those were court awards.
Posted by coral on November 16, 2002, at 10:06:42
In reply to those were court awards. » coral, posted by BeardedLady on November 16, 2002, at 9:51:22Dear Beardy,
The second he produced the work, it was automatically copyrighted to him,(exceptions include work-for-hire and contractural/employer agreements). What you've described, old sketches, meeting dates, is what I meant about provenance. The formal registration process makes it much easier to prove ownership.
As far as this site is concerned, it would seem that the key question would be whether this qualifies as "public domain," and is exactly the type of problems lawsuits are addressing. One of the additional questions is the intent of the author. If someone wishes to preserve the copyright, the proper statement would be advisable, in my opinion. On the other hand, if the site indicates that all material posted may be used at the discretion of the board's owner, people who post are agreeing to that condition. However, if someone took something from a site and published it as his/her own work, I believe that would violate the intent of the copyright laws.
----
Okay. Right. Same page. Thanks for discussing! (nm) » coral
Posted by BeardedLady on November 16, 2002, at 11:17:00
In reply to Re: those were court awards., posted by coral on November 16, 2002, at 10:06:42
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 16, 2002, at 14:07:46
In reply to Re: I think you should send this back to PSB, posted by ShelliR on November 16, 2002, at 9:09:48
> I could see if this thread had only to do with you that it would be appropriate to move it to the administrative board.
>
> But since it is turning into a general discussion on copyright, I thought it should have been left on psychosocial babble. It is not really an administrative issue; members are writing about it as a legal issue and moral issue.Is it possible to move it back? Or to explain why it was moved?Sorry, you're right, it's fine for a general discussion to continue on PSB. But I'd like any discussion of the copyright policies at this site to stay here.
Bob
Posted by IsoM on November 17, 2002, at 2:08:26
In reply to Re: send general discussion back to PSB, posted by Dr. Bob on November 16, 2002, at 14:07:46
Bob, I don't think it's good for the copyright issues to stay here on Admin, especially as much of what's being said ISN'T about yours vs ours in copyrighting. It's good for discussing at PSB too as your forums are not the only place many of us post to. It's a good idea for all people to be aware of copyright issues, not just about what they write, but about what they may quote or use that someone else has posted on diff sites.
As soon as a person modifies a picture in PhotoShop & stores their image on their hard drive, it's copyrighted. For example, Dreamer's work of your changing image is copyrighted. I'm sure you're aware of these sort of issues after your slip in forgetting to report your research to the IRB for approval. I'm not questioning that but only saying is I don't doubt you're much more careful now & have checked into what can & can't be used.
But few other people who normally post (or copy) from the internet are aware of these issues. Some don't care, but I'd hazard that most do. Hence the need to make others aware of the laws regarding internet copyright.
Posted by dreamerz on November 17, 2002, at 7:29:22
In reply to Re: about copyrights... » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on November 17, 2002, at 2:08:26
I freely give away the photoshop stuff I just don't considered it work...I am aware of copyright--I have other stuff that I dare not put on the net cause it's very~very good : )
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 17, 2002, at 12:08:20
In reply to Any comments on this article « Phil, posted by Dr. Bob on November 16, 2002, at 8:12:23
> > http://psychcentral.com/openjournal/story/0605010952.htm
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/1522.html
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 17, 2002, at 12:29:20
In reply to Any comments on this article « Phil, posted by Dr. Bob on November 16, 2002, at 8:12:23
[In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20021106/msgs/32312.html]
> Ditto Nik K
>
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > Well, I've been here at least 3 1/2 years.. maybe 4 years.. and I remember knowing, all that time, that this was a site for Dr Bobs research. It has always says on the top of the page that your posts might be used.
> > And I barely remember Dr Bob taking a more active (ie, not just administrative) role here.. so its probably about 3 years since he did that.. quite harsh to accuse him of "He setup and portrays his forums as a place to get help, advice, and support, not only from other consumers, but from none other than "Dr. Bob" himself." How does he do this?? I have never seen anything where he suggests that he will answer medical queries.
> >
> > Also, he states that with 10 years of net experience he has never come across a "I own your posts" kind of clause. Well, he can't have that much experience cos I have come across it before.. most of the "private" (ie, not corporation) sites I use also contain a similar clause.
> >
> > I do believe Dr Bob should check with individuals befor eusing their posts though.
> >
> > Oh, and this wonderful Dr Grohal didn't even mention the benefits that many of us get here. maybe he should try seeing from a users point of view, who have no where else to go during the bad times.
> >
> > This article isn't even dated, so I'm not even gonna think about it anymore.. its a pointless peice of stirring if you ask me!!
> >
> > Nikki
>
>
Posted by Dinah on November 17, 2002, at 13:29:34
In reply to Re: Any comments on this article, posted by Dr. Bob on November 17, 2002, at 12:08:20
Thanks for the links. Very interesting.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.